Responding to Disagreement or a Vulgar Personal Attack with Another Personal Attack

[Debater Slayer]

The other week, someone on a Discord server got into an argument with me and responded to my disagreement with a profane series of personal attacks. I told that person that they could benefit from more self-control and maturity before leaving the server, since I was a new member and realized that atmosphere was normalized there. I didn't respond in kind before leaving.

That situation brought to mind a question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

My opinion is that such a response generally reflects on the emotional discipline and maturity of its source, so I believe that responding in kind would be negative for me, not just for others. That's why I didn't do so in the abovementioned situation, in addition to seeing no point to doing so.

 

[JustGeorge]

I'd probably just leave the conversation(or platform). I don't usually have the energy to deal with online arguments.

 

[idea]

The other week, someone on a Discord server got into an argument with me and responded to my disagreement with a profane series of personal attacks. I told that person that they could benefit from more self-control and maturity before leaving the server, since I was a new member and realized that atmosphere was normalized there. I didn't respond in kind before leaving.

That situation brought to mind a question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

My opinion is that such a response generally reflects on the emotional discipline and maturity of its source, so I believe that responding in kind would be negative for me, not just for others. That's why I didn't do so in the abovementioned situation, in addition to seeing no point to doing so.

On the internet it is easy to ignore, avoid, change directions. It's the real life situations - at work, with family, in neighborhood - where things get tricky.

Count to 10. Not childish. Act, avoid reacting, take the needed time to compose and think.

Let them know you are willing to engage in a respectful dialogue but not in a hostile or abusive one. Establish boundaries, take care of yourself and others 1st while still approaching the situation with empathy.

Fight, flight, freeze. If you can confront the situation with a friend or two there to help, that can be good. It's challenging for sure!

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm much more vicious here than on other forums & IRL.
(The other forums have people I know IRL.)
Offending people matters less here.
- No physical proximity.
- No consequences regarding things that matter.

And elsewhere, I represent others, & must be like Caesar's wife.
(That means beyond reproach...not that I wear a dress or boink Italian men.)

 

[ChristineM]

On these hallowed pages one guy made very personally insulting and false accusations against me. I asked him to withdraw the accusation and apologise with no response. That got kind of heated to the extent i was asked to put him on ignore (i guess he was asked the same). So i will never get an apology for the insult. But there is no argument, in fact the little turd doesn't even exist as ar as I'm concerned

That was perhaps the worst event though there have been a few others where the conversation has become heated. Over time i realised it's just not worth it.

If things begin to get heated it's time to move away.

 

[Stevicus]

That situation brought to mind a question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

That's how I recall it used to be on Usenet back in the day. Many of the newsgroups were unmoderated, so it could pretty much be a free for all in some spots.

It wouldn't bother me much, as long as everyone was on a level playing field. It's when people engage in attacks or a certain degree of snark, but then cry foul if responded to in kind. That's what I wonder about, when there's a certain degree of favoritism or an uneven enforcement of the rules. If a forum decides to allow people to be negative or unfriendly, then they have to allow for some leeway to everyone.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The other week, someone on a Discord server got into an argument with me and responded to my disagreement with a profane series of personal attacks. I told that person that they could benefit from more self-control and maturity before leaving the server, since I was a new member and realized that atmosphere was normalized there. I didn't respond in kind before leaving.

That situation brought to mind a question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

My opinion is that such a response generally reflects on the emotional discipline and maturity of its source, so I believe that responding in kind would be negative for me, not just for others. That's why I didn't do so in the abovementioned situation, in addition to seeing no point to doing so.

Sometimes.

When I'm attacked here I might respond in kind.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The other week, someone on a Discord server got into an argument with me and responded to my disagreement with a profane series of personal attacks. I told that person that they could benefit from more self-control and maturity before leaving the server, since I was a new member and realized that atmosphere was normalized there. I didn't respond in kind before leaving.

That situation brought to mind a question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

My opinion is that such a response generally reflects on the emotional discipline and maturity of its source, so I believe that responding in kind would be negative for me, not just for others. That's why I didn't do so in the abovementioned situation, in addition to seeing no point to doing so.

Theoretical: It depends upon how badly I want to be on the server or forum. Sometimes you have to join them if you can't beat them. When you go over to Astronauts Only forum do you announce that you are a janitor at a bar? No. You say "I'm a spaceman, too!" Some trolls are searching for like minded individuals; and perhaps you want to blend in. Take for instance political trolls. They hate everyone not on their team, but they LOVE everyone who is. If you want to be on that team badly, then you blend in. Do you want to get close to these trolls and find out what they really think? Then you blend in. Do they have money, and you want to make a sale? Then you blend in. Is it a cult with lots of rich people in it? Then you blend in, baby!

The above is theoretical. I haven't actually done it, but it makes sense, right?

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

If it's an online venue that has no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, then I would probably leave. I honestly don't derive much satisfaction from butting heads with buttheads.

 

[John53]

The other week, someone on a Discord server got into an argument with me and responded to my disagreement with a profane series of personal attacks. I told that person that they could benefit from more self-control and maturity before leaving the server, since I was a new member and realized that atmosphere was normalized there. I didn't respond in kind before leaving.

That situation brought to mind a question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

My opinion is that such a response generally reflects on the emotional discipline and maturity of its source, so I believe that responding in kind would be negative for me, not just for others. That's why I didn't do so in the abovementioned situation, in addition to seeing no point to doing so.

I've been debating (for want of a better term) since fidonet in the BBS days and I usually find the attacks amusing, maybe I have no feelings.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The other week, someone on a Discord server got into an argument with me and responded to my disagreement with a profane series of personal attacks. I told that person that they could benefit from more self-control and maturity before leaving the server, since I was a new member and realized that atmosphere was normalized there. I didn't respond in kind before leaving.

That situation brought to mind a question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

My opinion is that such a response generally reflects on the emotional discipline and maturity of its source, so I believe that responding in kind would be negative for me, not just for others. That's why I didn't do so in the abovementioned situation, in addition to seeing no point to doing so.

Sometimes, I respond somewhat more vigorously than I perhaps ought to -- and of course, I've been warned by mods and had some posts modified as a result. I may suggest, for example, that something someone said is "just plain stupid," or "that was a totally bigoted thing to say, and you should be ashamed of yourself." To me, those things represent my honest feeling, but I recognize that rules are rules and I have to resist such statements here, and so of course I do, as I'd like to remain a member.

But I don't think that I would ever resort to profane personal attacks. I certainly never do that in real life. In fact, the worst I've ever said to someone who really was being terrible and completely ignorant to me in a bar setting (for month after month, actually) was this, after raising myself to my full height (which is well over 6'2" and over 200 lb.) and saying, in frighteningly even tones, "if you ever so much as speak to me again, I will rip your arms off!" And do you know -- he never spoke to me again!

 

[John53]

Sometimes, I respond somewhat more vigorously than I perhaps ought to -- and of course, I've been warned by mods and had some posts modified as a result. I may suggest, for example, that something someone said is "just plain stupid," or "that was a totally bigoted thing to say, and you should be ashamed of yourself." To me, those things represent my honest feeling, but I recognize that rules are rules and I have to resist such statements here, and so of course I do, as I'd like to remain a member.

But I don't think that I would ever resort to profane personal attacks. I certainly never do that in real life. In fact, the worst I've ever said to someone who really was being terrible and completely ignorant to me in a bar setting (for month after month, actually) was this, after raising myself to my full height (which is well over 6'2" and over 200 lb.) and saying, in frighteningly even tones, "if you ever so much as speak to me again, I will rip your arms off!" And do you know -- he never spoke to me again!

Ripping arms off was a popular threat when I was in high school because of a 1970's Australian comedy show.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If things begin to get heated it's time to move away.

That's one of my little issues: I find it so difficult to give up on an argument that I feel strongly about, especially when it involves "man's inhumanity to man." As a Humanist, it is so hard for me to let go when I perceive that other people are going to be hurt. (It's why the current U.S. "culture war" is so disturbing, so many people picking so mercilessly on so few, and all for nothing but gaining political power.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ripping arms off was a popular threat when I was in high school because of a 1970's Australian comedy show.

 

[Augustus]

question: if you were in some online venue that had no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, would you see yourself responding to disagreement with an ad hominem or responding to vulgar personal attacks in kind? Why or why not?

If someone is just being abusive I’d laugh at them rather than be abusive in turn. Straight abuse is a bit pointless.

On RF I tend towards reciprocity in tone of discussion, but it’s still a discussion about the points in question which is ultimately entertainment and is never personal so am happy to start afresh in a new thread.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If it's an online venue that has no rules against personal attacks, profanity, or trolling, then I would probably leave. I honestly don't derive much satisfaction from butting heads with buttheads.

Same. That's why I left immediately after telling that person they needed to work on their self-control and maturity. There are far better ways to spend time than arguing with such people in that kind of environment.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's one of my little issues: I find it so difficult to give up on an argument that I feel strongly about, especially when it involves "man's inhumanity to man." As a Humanist, it is so hard for me to let go when I perceive that other people are going to be hurt. (It's why the current U.S. "culture war" is so disturbing, so many people picking so mercilessly on so few, and all for nothing but gaining political power.)

If someone is just being abusive I’d laugh at them rather than be abusive in turn. Straight abuse is a bit pointless.

On RF I tend towards reciprocity in tone of discussion, but it’s still a discussion about the points in question which is ultimately entertainment and is never personal so am happy to start afresh in a new thread.

The person who posted the series of vulgar screeds was upset with me for saying that gender is a spectrum rather than a strict dichotomy and that using a slur for trans people was harmful and inappropriate. They did that while claiming to be defending "God's creations" from "being unnaturally altered."

I was almost tempted to respond more... vigorously, but I knew it would be pointless. I was more disgusted by the overt hatred than upset by the screeds, which I mainly took as a sign of childishness and impulsivity.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The person who posted the series of vulgar screeds was upset with me for saying that gender is a spectrum rather than a strict dichotomy and that using a slur for trans people was harmful and inappropriate. They did that while claiming to be defending "God's creations" from "being unnaturally altered."

I was almost tempted to respond more... vigorously, but I knew it would be pointless. I was more disgusted by the overt hatred than upset by the screeds, which I mainly took as a sign of childishness and impulsivity.

Of course it's pointless. Once you are in possession (as you suppose) of a Truth as absolute as "God," nothing can be allowed to alter your thinking. Here's an example from a Republican Representative in Florida:

Republican Rep. Randy Fine, who sponsored the ban on gender-affirming care for minors, invoked his religion to defend the state’s actions. “God does not make mistakes with our children,” Fine said.​

You can easily see that this does nothing to address a very real human problem -- that some children do indeed suffer (and I use the word deliberately) from gender dysphoria. But since "God doesn't make mistakes," then the only obvious answer is that those children themselves are guilty of something heinous, and deserve whatever happens to them.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

The person who posted the series of vulgar screeds was upset with me for saying that gender is a spectrum rather than a strict dichotomy and that using a slur for trans people was harmful and inappropriate. They did that while claiming to be defending "God's creations" from "being unnaturally altered."

I was almost tempted to respond more... vigorously, but I knew it would be pointless. I was more disgusted by the overt hatred than upset by the screeds, which I mainly took as a sign of childishness and impulsivity.

So, he was opposed to "God's creations being unnaturally altered"? I'll bet he'd change that tune pretty fast if there should come a day when he might need an organ transplant. Even better if his life-saving surgeon should happen to be a transgendered person.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course it's pointless. Once you are in possession (as you suppose) of a Truth as absolute as "God," nothing can be allowed to alter your thinking. Here's an example from a Republican Representative in Florida:

Republican Rep. Randy Fine, who sponsored the ban on gender-affirming care for minors, invoked his religion to defend the state’s actions. “God does not make mistakes with our children,” Fine said.​

You can easily see that this does nothing to address a very real human problem -- that some children do indeed suffer (and I use the word deliberately) from gender dysphoria. But since "God doesn't make mistakes," then the only obvious answer is that those children themselves are guilty of something heinous, and deserve whatever happens to them.

By their logic, corrective surgery for cleft palettes are an affront to The Lord.